HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 292 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:50 pm
Posts: 71
Here is a link to the German Tour magazine wind tunnel tests of several "aero road" frames compared to a Cannondale big tube road bike.
It's meant to be viewed on ipads and kindles so give it a minute to load and then you can scroll through it like a book.

http://www.tour-magazin.de/services/qtr ... 7.html#/24

My guess is that "aero road" frames will become more popular as time goes by. I'd rather have the Cannondale for a criterium though. Companies are acting like Aero road frames are new when in fact Kestrel has been selling them for over a decade but mainly to the tri market. Felt and Scott are pushing this "new" catagory hard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:36 pm
Posts: 104
Getter wrote:
For the clueless...what is the equivalent of 225gr of drag?

Is there some kind of example that the layman can relate to? :smartass:

...and so I take it Bonnen is using 303's this year?


225g of drag is roughly 30W. (power = force * distance/time = force * speed = 0.225*9.81*13.3, 13.3m/s ~= 30mph).

The "clean air" argument is a bit of red herring - yes, if you're drafting someone, you experience less aero force, but that still the main force you need to overcome, and a saving is a saving at the end of the day. The whole aero kit thing is a matter of relative advantage. Given a certain rider on a given bike, what's the effect of e.g. changing the wheels - what this boils down to is which set of wheels do I take to race. What thisisatest says is spot on.

A final other point, despite the perception, your average consumer buys kit based on marketing, not engineering. However, the situation is reversed when it comes to pro-teams selecting equipment. Zipp et al are not going to release full aero data to the man on the street - I can, however, quite imagine them doing so, and providing comparisons to competitors, to a pro outfit. Best judge then of true effectiveness is what pros are riding.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:09 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:11 pm
Posts: 840
Location: SC, USA
If you ride a small frame (50-53cm), you'll find aero frames to be a little silly. Getting water bottles in and out of a small Cervelo/Felt/Specialized/Litespeed/etc.. is a real joke. Not to mention that most aero designs are not based on bottles be present (except maybe the Scott/Neilpryde/Litespeed/S5). The only frameset (for smaller people) that even looks reasonable from a water bottle perspective is the Scott and maybe the Neilpryde. All the rest seem impractical (outside a TT event).

I would think that an aero fork will get you ~50% of the drag reduction over a standard vs.aero frameset with water bottles. If I were thinking to upgrade my ride, I would look a well fit/low weight/good handling frame, and swap out for an aero fork. Best of both worlds I suppose.

I don't think it’s fair to discount the clean/dirty air argument so easily. Drafting is an important element in cycling. The effect is that it changes the relative wind speed, such that higher yaw angles are (more) important. Take wheel designs for example, a stall angle of 15 degrees becomes much less appealing than lower profile aero wheels when wind speeds are (relatively) low. The same could be said for framesets. The existence of very large surface areas often leads to low stall yaw angles (i.e. Cervelo S5), which might not be an benefit in a drafting/pack scenario.

If I were shopping around for a aero bike, I think I would look at the Scott Foil and Neilpryde twice. They just seems more useful for most racers. They might not have the lowest drag values, but the tradeoffs make them serious road bikes, not morphed TT bikes. Trying to mix TT and Road is like trying to mix a Cross frame and road. It’s possible, but you have to manage the tradeoffs.

_________________
:-) Toys-R-Us


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 995
justkeepedaling wrote:
One word for that, cobbles. The Venge is not the most comfy bike out there ;)


One word for that, cobblers :wink:

The SL4 is no more comfortable than the Venge and stiffer in many areas. If it's comfort he wanted he had the Roubaix.

Or are you saying that the aero advantage is only present on super smooth roads? I note that Tour couldn't even use a human being or attach the dummy's hands to the bar as the vibration EVEN in a wind tunnel would skew the results sufficiently to make them worthless...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:30 am
Posts: 713
Location: Simi Valley CA
Courant wrote:

225g of drag is roughly 30W. (power = force * distance/time = force * speed = 0.225*9.81*13.3, 13.3m/s ~= 30mph).


Thanks for that...I think. :mrgreen:



airwise wrote:
justkeepedaling wrote:
One word for that, cobbles. The Venge is not the most comfy bike out there ;)


One word for that, cobblers :wink:

The SL4 is no more comfortable than the Venge and stiffer in many areas. If it's comfort he wanted he had the Roubaix.

Or are you saying that the aero advantage is only present on super smooth roads? I note that Tour couldn't even use a human being or attach the dummy's hands to the bar as the vibration EVEN in a wind tunnel would skew the results sufficiently to make them worthless...


Saw on a Venge Pro promo video saying that "stiffness" of the Pro is on par with the SL2. Not sure what the S-Works would compare to.

For the Paris Nice TT...the QS team rode SL4's. For a TT I figured they would be on a Venge. I guess for a uphill TT...stiffness is more important?

The only time I see Roubaix's come out is well...Roubaix. :D

_________________
eurperg wrote:
My wife is sitting next to me, and just thought that was a dildo, not a saddle.. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:36 pm
Posts: 104
ras11 wrote:
I don't think it’s fair to discount the clean/dirty air argument so easily. Drafting is an important element in cycling. The effect is that it changes the relative wind speed, such that higher yaw angles are (more) important. Take wheel designs for example, a stall angle of 15 degrees becomes much less appealing than lower profile aero wheels when wind speeds are (relatively) low. The same could be said for framesets. The existence of very large surface areas often leads to low stall yaw angles (i.e. Cervelo S5), which might not be an benefit in a drafting/pack scenario.


This is a fair point, though I suspect the change in yaw angle is relatively small. (My back of envelope calc would be, given typical drag reduction of 25% while drafting, you could back off the change in onset velocity... too late for that, I may do this tomorrow!). My main beef is that quite a few people go, ah, a wind tunnel is clean air, the real world is dirty, this then invalidates wind-tunnel results, which is far from the truth, it's far more subtle than that. All this is not to say I'd necessarily advocate getting an aero frameset - I agree with you that a lot of the action is likely in the fork, and small but significant details, so you could get a lot of the bang without going the full hog.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:36 pm
Posts: 104
PS the other point about clear-vs-dirty, drafting-vs-not is the non-linear performance response of the rider! I.e. it's likely far more significant to optimise the performance of the frame in clean flow, because this has maximum impact on rider performance. If you want to win a race, you've got to hit the front at some point ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Posts: 837
Location: Utah
cep111 wrote:
Here is a link to the German Tour magazine wind tunnel tests of several "aero road" frames compared to a Cannondale big tube road bike.
It's meant to be viewed on ipads and kindles so give it a minute to load and then you can scroll through it like a book.

http://www.tour-magazin.de/services/qtr ... 7.html#/24" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The picture shows:
-no water bottles
-no bottle cages
-no cables
-no bartape
-no shifters
-no helmet
-no face

(I bet if you put those factors in, the results woudl be so jumbled that the benifits would be even more indecernable, as to negate any benifit of an aero frame)

Not to mention(again):
-a gillet
-changing wind conditions
-humidity/Temp.
-etc...etc....

I will retact (in a way) what I said earlier and change it (a little). At this time I don't believe the "research", because of what I pointed out, above. But if proper studies are done and show a REAL & DISCERNABLE difference then...I am on board with Aero :thumbup:

You can't show "evidence" (of Aero benifits) with faulty/ non-realistic research and "show" it is an advantage, when basic elements are excluded (like cables, bottles, cages, shifters,etc...)

Yes, the Aero frames, in this case might show as better, but without the componets which are required to use that frame (again...cables, bottles, A FACE) then is is worthless information.

It might as well be a comercial. :noidea:

I am not Anti-Aero, but "come on guys".

We are talking about & using math equations showing "exactly how many watts are saved",...
but we get this from "research" that shows a frame being tested with out cables, shifters, bottles, A FACE.


Last edited by carbon2329 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 572
Location: Gold Coast Australia
I presume the exclusion of these "elements" in the testing is validated in your opinion as relevent as you believe he "elements" will interact differently with the variable framesets, and therefore cannot be treated as a constant and omitted??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Posts: 837
Location: Utah
I see what you mean.

I guess what I am trying to say (and probably not very well) is that when all the various "elements" are included, is seems it could totaly eliminate any real benifit of any frame, as it is compared to another. Or make the tru benifits so small as to almost disprove its usefullness. (does that make sense)

I appreciate the scientific method shown, becasue they are trying to isolate the frame and "keep other things constant", but if those other things (elements) totally destroy the theorized benifit, then........

Something standing alone might be aero, but if you hang a bunch of things on it (bottles, a rider, shifter, cables), how can you say one frame is truely better.

Say you are determining if different skin suits are more aero than another:
Sure there might be a "measurable difference" between them (however small that may be), but if you have them wear a backpack on thier back and baby-carrier on thier front, and a helmet etc.....whats the the difference :noidea: :D
(yes, it might be measurable, but, WOW, it's probably tiny........real tiny)

I may come across as real intense on the subjest, but I'm not. These are just my thoughts. :D
It's just fun to talk (type) about it.

P.S. I'm excited about VN's article coming out. I hope it is usefull and has some actually good results.


Last edited by carbon2329 on Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Posts: 1199
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)
There are many reasons why I don't believe the Tour test was an accurate aero test, however, there are hundreds of tests out there, done by experts such as John Cobb, in a wide variety of tunnels, with all sorts of configurations. There are also people who have field tested aero bikes and directly compared results to other bikes. I don't understand why some people can understand that time trial bikes are an advantage, and yet an aero framed bike such as a Cervelo S5 which is just about as aero, cannot be. In fact, tests have shown that it has the same relative performance with water bottles and without.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
The benefit is there, but some of us are arguing that in a road race (non-TT) the benefits from aero are very low on the scale of importance or factors that would determine a result.

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:44 am
Posts: 1730
Location: Canada
I know it's very subjective, but I just wanted to throw that in:

http://www.norco.com/news/630/tuft-wins ... norco-crr/

In that race, after a flat, Tuft had to change for his road bike, because he didn't have a TT backup bike...

Would that mean he'd have beaten Grabsch with a more aero bike ?...

Louis :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:25 pm
Posts: 313
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia / The Hague, Holland
@VNTech: that 141g of drag a Venge frame saves over a round tube frame, how many % of total drag is that?

_________________
2010 Guerciotti Whisper
2007 Bianchi 928L (update Sep '11)
1999 Bianchi MegaPro 25CrMo4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:23 am
Posts: 643
Location: Melbourne, Australia
prendrefeu wrote:
The benefit is there, but some of us are arguing that in a road race (non-TT) the benefits from aero are very low on the scale of importance or factors that would determine a result.

:beerchug:

_________________
Slam your stem.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:45 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 292 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], LouisN, rijndael, Super_fast and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. New aero test: 12 aero frames vs 12 "unaero" light frames

[ Go to page: 1 ... 4, 5, 6 ]

in Road

fa63

88

11344

Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:28 am

djconnel View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. TT bike mods for aero+weight

in Road

ITTY

13

915

Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:53 pm

Pokerface07 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Fuji Transonic aero road bike

in Road

53x12

5

1633

Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:28 pm

Otter View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Zipp SL-70 Aero

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

Monza36

21

3227

Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:37 am

ergott View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Corima Aero S?

in Road

ichobi

2

576

Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:49 am

ichobi View the latest post


It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:49 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB